perfidy

I'm curious. Did he actually see the film or is he reading off a sheet of talking points? I thought the film opens tomorrow. Not saying "a columnist for Vanity Fair" couldn't get comps or anything, it's just his loooong review feels canned. He sticks so close to the storyline it feels like he's reading more than notes scribbled in the dark of a theater. He doesn't really speak of imagery which is mightily odd for a film review. Besides, Hitchens is a Brit. Why are his knickers in such a twist over American political esoterica anyway?

I've never seen a Michael Moore film and I don't really care to see this one. But the hysteria surrounding it is awfully humorous. Geez, the more I hear people shrieking "Don't see this film! It's lies! Lies, all lies!" the more I think I just might. OK, maybe not, but it sounded appealing for a moment.

So Mr. Moore is a satirist who plays loose with the facts if it makes for a better story. His foil, Mr. Bush, is sanctimonious and plays loose with the facts if it makes for a better story. They were made for each other. Watch my swing, indeed.

Two things: Hitchens bitchens about the "mysterious Saudi flights" that Moore apparently goes after in the film. If Richard Clarke, a major critic of the administration, takes responsibility, I'm inclined to buy it. For those who've disparaged Clarke's credibility in the past, what does his willingness to take responsibility tell you?

Second, I get fairly pissed off at people who piss on the notion of being innocent before _proven_ guilty. Don't wars get started that way? Don't innocent people land in jail?

Power corrupts.